Reply to We Need a Third Party For Centrists Like Me!!!

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "We Need a Third Party For Centrists Like Me!!!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=Anonymous]Hmm.  I'm not sure this is exactly right.  There's a difference between Dems "convincing themselves that their leaders are doing everything they can", and Dems (and others) believing that the sorts of centrist policy proposals that "everyone agrees on" are the ones the Dems are pursuing--successfully or unsuccessfully.[/quote]

Obama and the (largely) centrist Dems may not be very effective at pushing the centrist agenda, but that's a different argument from saying they're not pursuing it at all.[/quote]
I think we agree, but I didn't quite follow.

I thought that the WaPo piece unfairly lumped together two groups: 1) people who want basically what the Dem politicians support but for whatever reason are attached to the idea of a new centrist party; and 2) people who think the Dems aren't doing enough to fix things. I think those are actually very different groups.

[quote=Anonymous]It could well be that the Broderesque dream of a "centrist third party" is not only infeasible from a electoral perspective, but from a governing one as well.[/quote]
I think so, in a way. This is the problem of the Dems bargaining against themselves (generously assuming for sake of argument that the Dems want at least somewhat leftist policies). The Reps are so nuts that if you really want a 1% tax increase, you opening position has to be full communism. If you start by arguing for 2%, they'll say "10% decrease, eliminate the Dep't of Ed., put us back on the gold standard, and publicly execute one abortion doctor per month." The Dems failure to accept this reality after all of this time is why we have so much fool/knave speculation about Obama and Reid.

[quote=Anonymous]It's just too easy in our existing government for radical elements to shut down the process--especially with a Senate where miniscule rural minorities are allowed super-representation.  (The Dakotas have *four* Senators with 1.2 million people.  California, in contrast, has half that number of Senators with 37 million voters.  Frankly, this holdover from the slave-states demands is a criminal disgrace, even without the filibuster.)[/quote]
Just about everything about the Senate is stupid. Since it's theoretically about respecting the individuality of states and the limited nature of our association, it only really makes sense if we could reorganize the union. California, NY, etc. could get get tired of being pushed around by these podunk states and go make their own country.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics